Congress Nears Deal on Illegal Immigrants (breaking on cable networks)

AP/Yahoo News ^ | 4-6-06 | DAVID ESPO

[STARWISE]

WASHINGTON - In a last stab at compromise, Senate Republicans and Democrats reported progress Thursday toward agreement on legislation opening the way to legal status and eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million immigrants now in the U.S. illegally.

"There's been tremendous progress overnight," said Sen. Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) of Nevada, the Democratic leader, while Majority Leader Bill Frist also expressed optimism that a long-sought compromise might be at hand.

There was no immediate reaction from President Bush, who has made immigration legislation a key priority.

The developments occurred after Frist unveiled a new bill late Wednesday night on the subject as the Senate headed into a test vote on the most sweeping immigration bill in two decades.

In general, the legislation would provide for enhanced border security, regulate the flow of future immigrants into the United States and settle the legal fate of the estimated 11 million men, women and children already in the country.

It was the fate of the illegal immigrant population that proved hardest to legislate, and it has left the Senate on the verge of gridlock for days.

(snip)

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., as well as other key senators met before the vote to review terms of a proposed compromise.

In general, it would require illegal immigrants who have been in the United States between two years and five years to return to their home country briefly, then re-enter as temporary workers. They could then begin a process of seeking citizenship.

Illegal immigrants here longer than five years would not be required to return home; those in the country less than two years would be required to leave without assurances of returning, and take their place in line with others seeking entry papers.

[untrained skeptic]

It sounds like the "deal" is that the most blatant amnesty is reserved for those who have been in the country for 5 or more years.

It sounds like those who have been here for 2 to 5 years would have to return home, but would then reenter as guest workers.

It could just be how it was reported, but it seems like they are being pretty much guaranteed a guest worker visa if they pass a background check, which isn't going to be very relaible considering these people have been living outside the law for at least two years.

Are they going to be required to be matched with jobs before being granted a guest worker visa? Are "guest workers" going to be allowed to bring their families? Are there going to be strict requirements on the guest worker program to make sure that these people are going to be able to be self sufficient?

Are those who have been here illegally going to get perference for guest worker visas over those who haven't broken the law?

This doesn't seem like a comprimase between amnesty and a work visa program. This looks like amnesty with a few cosmetic concessions.

This is actually worse than mere amnesty. Amnesty just forgives past offenses. This rewards people who have broken the law. This actively underminse our legal system.

This plan MUST die and the Senate needs a very serious wakeup call.

If our country needs workers we can fulfill that need through a work visa program that doesn't reward criminal behavior.

We have failed to enforce our immigration laws and I can accept that it is reasonable to forgive those who broke the law by comming here illegally and not hold that against them.

However, we absolutely cannot reward them for doing so.

Their "amnesty" should be conditional on their leaving the country. They should then be given equal consideration for visa programs, not preferential treatment.

We need to make illegal entry a felony and we need to make being in the country illegally a felony.

If they leave over the next year, grant tme amnesty from that felony. If they don't hold them accountable.

Secure the border. Enforce the laws. Don't reward criminals.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

The amnesty Carter declared isn't even comparable to this.

In order for the two amnesties to be equivalent Carter would have had to give not only a blanket, i.e. absolutely no conditions attached, pardon to every civilian that evaded the draft by going to Canada, but also to every serviceman that went AWOL during the course of the war.

There is no historical analogue to what the United States Senate and this administration are now doing.

They are effectively stabbing their own country in its proverbial heart, and then twisting the knife.

To dismiss the inevitable consequences of this abomination by comparing it to something that is not analogous only diminishes the severity of what they are doing.

[Spiff]

I cannot stomach more of these.

That particular creature was not opposed by the Republicans in the Senate. All but 4 of them voted for her confirmation. And two other stinkers on the court (one recently retired) were Suiter and O'Connor who were both appointed by Republican Presidents.

And Bush almost put a La Raza supporter on the Court last year. He even nominated an unqualified political crony.

A Republican President is no guarantee at all of getting good Supreme Court nominees or of keeping out the bad ones. History has proven this.

[STARWISE]

I certainly empathize, and in the big picture .. we don't have to be living on a border state to be dealing with this issue. It's nationwide, granted though it's magnified greatly in border states.

I don't think anything comes close to or matters more than our national security .. and this issue piggybacks that. In that arena, the Pubbies have it hands down over the Rats.

Anyone who doesn't see that is blind .. and anyone who would squander their vote and pout off to vote for a proven liberal Rat to spite the Pubbies is toying with our very survival. Those are the uninformed, petty voters I FEAR.

[newzjunkey]

HELL NO!

[kenboy]

If the illegals becomes citizens and must now be paid legal wages then they will become unemployable. The business will either have to shut down due to higher costs or will have to import new illegals.

Yep. Which is why this is all a giant waste of time.

[A CA Guy]

Nothing like pissing off all the Republicans to hand the Senate, Presidency and House back to Democrats IMO.

This issue and the way Republicans are handling this is so out of touch with the population that they are literally sabotaging their power away to Democrats for perhaps the next 20 years.

BOOKMARK THIS!

[samcgwire]

The losers are the next in line to lobby on behalf of Mexico and Dubai, et al.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Bump.

[rfp1234]

Who appointed Count Dracula to the SCOTUS?

--a picture of Souter--

[AmusedBystander]

If you don't think that we can do these things, then you have NO objection to a law being passed that would mandate them, right?

No objection from me. But having the ability is no good without having the will. This country can't even stay united on fighting terrorists, so good luck with your proposition.

[JewishRighter]

It's hard to argue your point in light of how darn frustrating things are right now and how much the CP has got it right on the issues. But for me, the way the matter is stated there makes it impossible for me, as a matter of conscience to vote for them. I have no quarrel with people with those particular beliefs, but a vote for a party with that preamble is too close to an endorsement of a statement which is contrary to my most deeply held principles of faith.

[Rockitz]

The GOP is going to lose it's base over this. I will use this issue to decide all future votes for both state and federal elected officials. No more free passes.

[bill1952]

>remember that the beautiful young lady in your photograph

This young lady?

> was confirmed by all but two Republican Senators.

All the more reason that my point is valid, guy.
The pubs don't beieve that there is some litmus test of wacko idealogy that must be vetted to confirm a president's nominee.
The dems do, and they don't really care that that is not a constitutional duty.

We need to keep the power to nominate these people away from those who would put forth another Ginsburg - or a Souter, for that matter.

[Liberator]

"Do these dirtbags really think that they can ignore the will of the American people simply because a bunch of sectarian ethnic agitators and unreconstructed Marxists were able to bus in thousands of malcontents waving Mexican flags?"

By the reaction of the Senate and President, the immortal words of Senator Curly Howard(R) of the Three Stooges can best answer your question: "Why, soyintly!"

[SmoothTalker]

The House better not buckle on this. If it does the Republican party will never see another dollar from me and i'll be staying at home this fall. I won't be alone.

[GarySpFc]

Kris Kobach, and he is presidental material.

[samcgwire]

"We should all fiercely DEMAND that Congress enact legislation (like secured borders, more border patrol, harsh employer penalties, deadlines for self deportation, etc) to get ALL illegal aliens the HELL out of our country. Then and only then can Congress come, on bended knee, and beg us to allow them to start letting some back in. We'll agree, but only on OUR terms, not the terms of the foreign nations or the foreigners themselves. OUR terms, not their's."

Hear here!

[JewishRighter]

"A Republican President is no guarantee at all of getting good Supreme Court nominees or of keeping out the bad ones. History has proven this."

You may be right. But a democRat is a virtual guarantee of stinkers.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

My take is that we need to retake the Republican Party.

We can start by nominating a presidential candidate who isn't Vincente Fox's best buddy, and the spitting image of his Democratic opponent.

If all else fails, then I suppose we could begin to consider forming a third, pro-America, pro-law enforcement, anti-immigration third party.

It's been done (successfully) in the past.